3 ms·

"then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument." It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. In the reference

"then what does it mean to be a woman? This is a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument." It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. In the reference to Danielle Muscato, who looks like a man, acts like a man and has the biological sex of a man, but identifies as a woman and wants to be seen as a woman. I mean, I really do not care that much about gender and yes, otherwise the page is quite filled with ideological self righteous references, but to me it does seem like a valid point. Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? To be clear, I have no problem adressing people by their new names or alike, but I do feel that at some point the topic reached the realm of absurdity. There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriachat power structures, which undoubtly still exists.

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. It is a legitimate question. But it's a legitimate question answered in 978 pages in the late 1940s[0] – and that answer's validity is questionable, considering how much it leans on the experience of upper-middle-class French women from the 1940s. I think it's fair to say that a more complete answer would be longer. Expecting somebody to answer this question, in the context people like Alex are asking it, is like saying "if red isn't Fe₂O₃, then what is red?" (and then refusing to listen to answers like "apples are also red" or "red is a kind of visual perception" or "photons can have different energy levels"). It's so much easier to pose the question than answer it; you basically have to be an academic philosopher to even understand why the question is meaningful. > Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? This, likewise, probably requires a book to answer. I'm not aware of anyone having written one; if there are academic treatises, they'd probably start by distinguishing between species concepts[1] and work from there. (I'll give the tentative answer "Yes, but it requires you to decouple some of your notions about what human is." – provided you don't quote me on that.) A good rule of thumb to use is the principle of charity: nobody's claiming anything absurd. > So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? Empiricism. Like with species, there are several different ways to define biological sex; most can be altered, in humans. Endocrinological sex, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex characteristics… Reproductive capacity, even, though that's not legally available for humans yet, and I doubt it's practically available either. But, as you noticed, "change their biological sex" isn't the point of being transgender. (Not that there's really "a point" in the first place, but semantics.) It might be worth making the distinction between transgender and transsexual, while observing there's a decent overlap… though there's an extent to which that's just a model, too. The best description of reality is reality itself. > There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriarchal power structures, which undoubtedly still exists. There are many biological differences – but our society fixates heavily on certain differences (secondary sex characteristics, "race"-associated phenotypical variations) to the detriment of everybody involved. It's fine to acknowledge them, but try not to categorise people by them without their consent, and don't sanctify them as immutable when they're very clearly not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? How is that helpful, when language is there for communication of ordinary people? Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? Summarized, men have a penis, women have a vagina. So a mens toilet can look different to a women toilet, out of physological reasons. And none of this has anything to do with how a person feels inside or how he or she or it identifies, or to what jobs they qualify. Except well, giving birth and breast feeding. Edit: I think the terms trans men and trans women are clear and precise enough, to describe people who identify with the other sex, why having another body. But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? Because the whole thread here seems to be a discussion about that. Can we still use his software? I think yes, otherwise we are heading into a totalitarian society.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? Well, yeah – or familiar with that kind of thought, at least. Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives. Just look at the SEP page on qualia,[0] and that's a summary of part of that question. It simply doesn't matter to most people. I don't have to know what, exactly, a Hindu is, in order to respect Hindus; the question simply doesn't have all that much relevance to my life. > Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? I mean, you can. How you use language is up to you. But, rightly or wrongly, "man" and "woman" are very salient social categories in our society, and pressuring people into social boxes without their consent harms them. (It's a form of violence, for some senses of the word "violence".) If you can use the terminology how you want to, without forcibly social-categorising people, then more power to you! And please teach me your ways, if you have the time. > But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? That isn't discriminating. Discriminating is discriminating. Such insistence on such terminology can be part of discrimination, but the essence of the discrimination is not in the words. > It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. Me too. The world is large, and confusing. Especially with social topics, people are inclined to yell at you as soon as you "step out of line", because if they make space for those who genuinely aren't informed, they open themselves up to sealions.[1][2] Fortunately, you usually have opportunities to learn about these things other than in the spaces that get trolled often. > My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, It can be both. (Though I wouldn't call him sadistic. Some people around him are quite sadistic, sure, but I don't think he wants to hurt people because he likes their pain.) > but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? I'm happy to play catch with him again, if he stops lobbing bricks at my head and claiming it's dodge-ball (and if I can trust that he isn't likely to start again once my guard comes down). He's not excluded from participation in society; just some parts of it he used to be included in. He's got plenty of new friends to enjoy spending time with, if he can. Just because he's sad about the relationships he's thrown away, that doesn't mean he's entitled to other people's friendliness. [0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ [1]: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ [2]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/

wizzwizz4 4y ago

> It still sounds like a legitimate question to me. It is a legitimate question. But it's a legitimate question answered in 978 pages in the late 1940s[0] – and that answer's validity is questionable, considering how much it leans on the experience of upper-middle-class French women from the 1940s. I think it's fair to say that a more complete answer would be longer. Expecting somebody to answer this question, in the context people like Alex are asking it, is like saying "if red isn't Fe₂O₃, then what is red?" (and then refusing to listen to answers like "apples are also red" or "red is a kind of visual perception" or "photons can have different energy levels"). It's so much easier to pose the question than answer it; you basically have to be an academic philosopher to even understand why the question is meaningful. > Also the comparison to transspecies people. So a person who feels like a lion, is still a human, or not? This, likewise, probably requires a book to answer. I'm not aware of anyone having written one; if there are academic treatises, they'd probably start by distinguishing between species concepts[1] and work from there. (I'll give the tentative answer "Yes, but it requires you to decouple some of your notions about what human is." – provided you don't quote me on that.) A good rule of thumb to use is the principle of charity: nobody's claiming anything absurd. > So why can a person who feels like a woman change their biological sex then? Empiricism. Like with species, there are several different ways to define biological sex; most can be altered, in humans. Endocrinological sex, secondary sex characteristics, primary sex characteristics… Reproductive capacity, even, though that's not legally available for humans yet, and I doubt it's practically available either. But, as you noticed, "change their biological sex" isn't the point of being transgender. (Not that there's really "a point" in the first place, but semantics.) It might be worth making the distinction between transgender and transsexual, while observing there's a decent overlap… though there's an extent to which that's just a model, too. The best description of reality is reality itself. > There are biological differences and I don't think acknowledging that, has anything to do with supporting patriarchal power structures, which undoubtedly still exists. There are many biological differences – but our society fixates heavily on certain differences (secondary sex characteristics, "race"-associated phenotypical variations) to the detriment of everybody involved. It's fine to acknowledge them, but try not to categorise people by them without their consent, and don't sanctify them as immutable when they're very clearly not. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept

hutzlibu 4y ago
So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? How is that helpful, when language is there for communication of ordinary people? Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? Summarized, men have a penis, women have a vagina. So a mens toilet can look different to a women toilet, out of physological reasons. And none of this has anything to do with how a person feels inside or how he or she or it identifies, or to what jobs they qualify. Except well, giving birth and breast feeding. Edit: I think the terms trans men and trans women are clear and precise enough, to describe people who identify with the other sex, why having another body. But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? Because the whole thread here seems to be a discussion about that. Can we still use his software? I think yes, otherwise we are heading into a totalitarian society.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > So basically you are saying that you have to be a academic philosopher to understand such simple questions? Well, yeah – or familiar with that kind of thought, at least. Confronted with the question "what is red?", most people just shrug and get on with their lives. Just look at the SEP page on qualia,[0] and that's a summary of part of that question. It simply doesn't matter to most people. I don't have to know what, exactly, a Hindu is, in order to respect Hindus; the question simply doesn't have all that much relevance to my life. > Why not keep things simple and reserve sex for the biological terms? I mean, you can. How you use language is up to you. But, rightly or wrongly, "man" and "woman" are very salient social categories in our society, and pressuring people into social boxes without their consent harms them. (It's a form of violence, for some senses of the word "violence".) If you can use the terminology how you want to, without forcibly social-categorising people, then more power to you! And please teach me your ways, if you have the time. > But as far as I understood, some think that is already discriminating? That isn't discriminating. Discriminating is discriminating. Such insistence on such terminology can be part of discrimination, but the essence of the discrimination is not in the words. > It is confusing and this is what annoys me with the topic. Me too. The world is large, and confusing. Especially with social topics, people are inclined to yell at you as soon as you "step out of line", because if they make space for those who genuinely aren't informed, they open themselves up to sealions.[1][2] Fortunately, you usually have opportunities to learn about these things other than in the spaces that get trolled often. > My initial reaction to the top post and transphobic, was that the maintainer is a sadistic asshole who attacks trans people, but so far I only have seen, that he has a different opinion on the topic and the tendency to push his opinion on other people in a not ideal way, It can be both. (Though I wouldn't call him sadistic. Some people around him are quite sadistic, sure, but I don't think he wants to hurt people because he likes their pain.) > but maybe it is still possible to not exclude him from participation in society? I'm happy to play catch with him again, if he stops lobbing bricks at my head and claiming it's dodge-ball (and if I can trust that he isn't likely to start again once my guard comes down). He's not excluded from participation in society; just some parts of it he used to be included in. He's got plenty of new friends to enjoy spending time with, if he can. Just because he's sad about the relationships he's thrown away, that doesn't mean he's entitled to other people's friendliness. [0]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/ [1]: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/ [2]: https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/ https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/01/sealioning/